In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants
Date:
1914
Publisher:
New York, Appeal Printing Co.
Volume:
In the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States of America, petitioner, vs. Motion Picture Patents Company, et al., defendants : record volume 5
Leaf #:
000424
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Early Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
The Museum of Modern Art Library, New York
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
These seven volumes contain the testimonies and supporting documents from the U.S. District Court's antitrust lawsuit against the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC). Formed in 1908, the MPPC (sometimes referred to asœ"the Edison Trust" or just "the Trust") sought to control the American film industry through pooling patents and demanding that producers and exhibitors acquire licenses to those patents. Independent producers and exhibitors, who refused to license the patents, argued that the MPPC was an unlawful monopoly. In 1912 and 1913, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania heard testimonies from both MPPC members, such as Siegmund Lubin, and "Independents" who later became Hollywood moguls, such as William Fox. Ultimately, in 1915, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which found the MPPC in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and spelled the end for the already weakening MPPC. -- Eric Hoyt, 2012
Date Added:
September 21, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

2874 Defendants' Exhibit No. 131. Q. By the use of non-conflicting programs, is it possible for competitors operating in the immediate vicinity of one another, to stimulate the motion picture business to their mutual advantage? A. Yes, in my opinion. Q. Assuming that three theatres in the immediate vicinity of one another have substantially the same program, do you believe that under those conditions, they stimulate the motion picture business? A. I do not. Q. Assuming that three motion picture theatres side by side or in the intermediate neighborhood, are running three entirely different programs — do you say that under those conditions they stimulate the business? A. Yes. Q. I show you a copy of the Motion Picture World of July 23rd, 1910, which contains an advertisement at page 176, signed "Motion Picture Distributing & Sales Company, 111 East 14th Street, New York," and ask you if you identify it? A. Yes. Q. Is that an advertisement which was inserted in the Motion Picture World of that date by the Motion Picture Distributing & Sales Company, of which you were then an officer? A. Yes. Q. And does it contain a list of the independent buying exchanges with which the Motion Picture Sales & Distributing Company Avas then dealing? A. Yes. Mr. Kingsley : I offer the list in evidence. Mr. Grosvenor: I object to its admissibility on the ground of immateriality, irrelevancy and incompetency. The list offered is received in evidence, marked "Defendants' Exhibit No. 131," and is as follows : Defendants' Exhibit No. 131. LIST OF BUYING EXCHANGES, JULY 13TH, 1910. Anti-Trust Film Co., 79 So. Clark St., Chicago, 111. Albany Film Exchange, 418 Broadway, Albany, N. Y. L. J. Applegath & Sons, 145 Yonge St., Toronto, Out. Allen Amusement Company, Calgary, Alberta, Can. B. & W. Film Exchange, 412 East Baltimore St., Baltimore, Md.